User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/19/2016 10:52:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if serious, but James was talking about the blood of animals. What does that have to do with the Flesh and Blood of the Living God? This topic gets old, but for those seriously discerning, Christ had the opportunity to clarify himself if He meant it figuratively, but instead He reinforced His original message. In every transubstantation thread, there are Protestants who seem to go out of their way to not only reject the theology of transubstantiation, but to do so by rejecting the theology of the divinity of Christ. Suddenly, Christ is reduced to a mere mortal human, not capable of anything more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2016 11:42:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if serious, but James was talking about the blood of animals. What does that have to do with the Flesh and Blood of the Living God? This topic gets old, but for those seriously discerning, Christ had the opportunity to clarify himself if He meant it figuratively, but instead He reinforced His original message. 1. Pope James never never made that distinction. 2. Jesus did clarify what He meant, but you don't want to acknowledge it: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 KJV [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Do you see that underlined verse? Do you remember that CCC 1392 states that the Eucharist contains "the flesh of the risen Christ"? How does consuming the flesh of the risen Christ show His death? By killing Him again, and offering Him as a sacrifice for sin again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 2:26:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Pope James never never made that distinction. 2. Jesus did clarify what He meant, but you don't want to acknowledge it: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 KJV [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Do you see that underlined verse? Do you remember that CCC 1392 states that the Eucharist contains "the flesh of the risen Christ"? How does consuming the flesh of the risen Christ show His death? By killing Him again, and offering Him as a sacrifice for sin again? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if serious, but James was talking about the blood of animals. What does that have to do with the Flesh and Blood of the Living God? This topic gets old, but for those seriously discerning, Christ had the opportunity to clarify himself if He meant it figuratively, but instead He reinforced His original message. 1. Pope James never never made that distinction. 2. Jesus did clarify what He meant, but you don't want to acknowledge it: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 KJV [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Do you see that underlined verse? Do you remember that CCC 1392 states that the Eucharist contains "the flesh of the risen Christ"? How does consuming the flesh of the risen Christ show His death? By killing Him again, and offering Him as a sacrifice for sin again? How do you logically go from "do this in remembrance" to "this is symbolic?" He said to do this, we do it. Period. You are trying to say that by doing just what He said, that is "killing Him again and again." I'm not following. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 10:55:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Another point here. Catholic doctrine says the Eucharist contains the flesh of the risen Christ. The Biblical instructions on the Lord's Supper clearly state "this is my body which is broken for you, take and eat". Is it the Roman Catholic position that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ remains broken?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 11:10:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Bohr_Adam, if a wedding anniversary is celebrated, that celebration does not constitute another wedding, it is a rembrance of a past event that continues to affect the present.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 11:18:00 AM EDT
[#6]
The sacrifice of the mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary. It is once and eternal. Every Liturgy of the Eucharist celebrated at the Catholic mass is a participation in the once and eternal sacrifice which is always 'present' to God in heaven. That's why John saw the lamb (Rev 5:6) at the center of the heavenly liturgy and why that lamb was 'slain from the foundation of the world.' Because it is once, eternal and present in perpetuity. It is prefigured countless times in the old testament (Exodus 29:39, 53:7, Malachi 1:11). St. Paul most certainly believed it (1 Cor 10:16; 1 Cor 11:27).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 12:07:49 PM EDT
[#7]
The writer of Hebrews contrasts between suffering since the foundation of the world vs. the perfect one time offering of Christ, you can't have both:
Hebrews 9:25-28 KJV [25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; [26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: [28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 12:53:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Grave Sin is 1/3 of what is required for a sin to be mortal. In addition to the sin being grave in nature there has to be full knowledge of its gravity and deliberate consent of the will. Divorce is a sin, although forgivable as are all sins unless it is against the Spirit. Not trying to argue, God Bless! Long lapsed Catholic here; What is the position of the church if a person was divorced against their will? In most states if one person wants a divorce, the other can't stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 12:56:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long lapsed Catholic here; What is the position of the church if a person was divorced against their will? In most states if one person wants a divorce, the other can't stop it. Pretty sure it's the same regardless of circumstance. Without an annulment from the church you're still married and sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse is adultery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 1:29:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote History Quoted:
Long lapsed Catholic here; What is the position of the church if a person was divorced against their will? In most states if one person wants a divorce, the other can't stop it. The RCC position is that divorce is solely a dissolution of the civil/legal contract that the state conveys upon the married. It has no bearing on the sacrament of marriage transacted by the two participants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 1:32:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The RCC position is that divorce is solely a dissolution of the civil/legal contract that the state conveys upon the married. It has no bearing on the sacrament of marriage transacted by the two participants. Would people that got married outside of the catholic church (protestant or non-denominational ceremony) be recognized as married if they converted to Catholic or would they have to redo the sacrament within the catholic church? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2016 1:54:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would people that got married outside of the catholic church (protestant or non-denominational ceremony) be recognized as married if they converted to Catholic or would they have to redo the sacrament within the catholic church? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The RCC position is that divorce is solely a dissolution of the civil/legal contract that the state conveys upon the married. It has no bearing on the sacrament of marriage transacted by the two participants. Would people that got married outside of the catholic church (protestant or non-denominational ceremony) be recognized as married if they converted to Catholic or would they have to redo the sacrament within the catholic church? That answer varies depending upon the religion of the people involved. If neither party was Catholic, the RCC views the marriage as valid because the two parties transact the marriage between themselves, assuming that it was either the first marriage for both parties or, if not a first marriage, that there is no surviving spouse from the first marriage (i.e. the person marrying is a widow or widower). If either (or both) was Catholic, the RCC would not see the marriage as valid because there are requirements that the RCC places upon its members to marry each other. I'm not a Canon lawyer, but I believe some of those requirements include: a Catholic priest leading or observing the ceremony (or dispensation from the Bishop), completion of a marriage preparation seminar that explains the Church's teaching on marital matters, ceremony held in a church (or dispensation from the Bishop), and probably several others of which I am not aware. If a Catholic does not conform with these, the RCC does not recognize the marriage due to "lack of form". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2016 2:14:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long lapsed Catholic here; What is the position of the church if a person was divorced against their will? In most states if one person wants a divorce, the other can't stop it. They're still married regardless. And therefore any future sexual relations with anyone else would be adultery. Divorce only ends the legal and civil aspects of marriage. How can man separate what God has joined? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2016 10:17:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Great video for Catholics who may suffer from "papalolotry" (the notion that everything a pope says must be treated as if it is infallible) and Protestants interested in the proper Catholic understanding of the papacy: Papal Elections: God's Will vs. Human Error
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2016 10:11:42 PM EDT
[#15]
The wheels continue to come off this papacy: Another Scalfari Interview
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2016 12:32:25 PM EDT
[#16]
deleted my post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2016 12:33:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sacrifice of the mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary. It is once and eternal. Every Liturgy of the Eucharist celebrated at the Catholic mass is a participation in the once and eternal sacrifice which is always 'present' to God in heaven. That's why John saw the lamb (Rev 5:6) at the center of the heavenly liturgy and why that lamb was 'slain from the foundation of the world.' Because it is once, eternal and present in perpetuity. It is prefigured countless times in the old testament (Exodus 29:39, 53:7, Malachi 1:11). St. Paul most certainly believed it (1 Cor 10:16; 1 Cor 11:27). Exactly. Well put! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2016 2:18:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He also said "this is my body." Not "this is like my body" or "this represents my body" or "this symbolizes my body." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2016 2:35:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sacrifice of the mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary. It is once and eternal. St. Paul most certainly believed it (1 Cor 10:16; 1 Cor 11:27). Paul did not. Clearly no "Real Presence". No sacrifice. No sacrament. No Mass. Only remembrance. 1 Cor 11:26-27 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2016 11:46:39 PM EDT
[#20]
anhedonist, you are really grasping at straws here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2016 8:19:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Once and eternal"? Where are you getting that? Paul did not. Clearly no "Real Presence". No sacrifice. No sacrament. No Mass. Only remembrance. 1 Cor 11:26-27 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The sacrifice of the mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary. It is once and eternal. St. Paul most certainly believed it (1 Cor 10:16; 1 Cor 11:27). Paul did not. Clearly no "Real Presence". No sacrifice. No sacrament. No Mass. Only remembrance. 1 Cor 11:26-27 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Skip the obvious passage where Paul clearly states the cup we drink IS the real deal. Then distort the meaning of the second text. Did you hurt your back gyrating through that logical conclusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2017 12:14:25 PM EDT
[#22]
DOCSGT, there's an excellent article here: http://www.onepeterfive.com/hard-cases-make-bad-law-a-response-to-austen-ivereigh-on-amoris-laetitia/ which you may find helpful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2017 8:14:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A woman who is constantly beaten, then the husband leaves and divorces that woman, finds a girlfriend never to be seen again. The woman didnt want a divorce, she wanted to work it out for love of God and not wanting to offend Him? Is that woman responsible for that divorce? I'd say no, it was beyond her control. If something is beyond our control there is no sin. Would God even look at that marriage as valid? Would God want his child ( the abused woman ) to be in that marriage? Is that what you would want for your daughter? Would you condem your daughter for moving on ? Could that possibly be an extraordinary situation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
A woman who is constantly beaten, then the husband leaves and divorces that woman, finds a girlfriend never to be seen again. The woman didnt want a divorce, she wanted to work it out for love of God and not wanting to offend Him? Is that woman responsible for that divorce? I'd say no, it was beyond her control. If something is beyond our control there is no sin. Would God even look at that marriage as valid? Would God want his child ( the abused woman ) to be in that marriage? Is that what you would want for your daughter? Would you condem your daughter for moving on ? Could that possibly be an extraordinary situation? The husband has committed adultery in this situation. Is not the woman perfectly justified in divorcing him? “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now, I'm a Protestant, so I don't know the Catholic position - wouldn't this be grounds for divorce? Annulment? In any case, it seems to me the problem with Francis is not that he is disposed to show mercy. That's fine. That's wonderful, in fact. That's Christlike. The problem arises if, in his zeal to show mercy, he becomes disposed to call Sin, "Not Sin." That's heading into the Unforgivable territory. That's bumping up against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is anti-Christlike. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. Just one heretic's opinion. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2017 11:20:54 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now, I'm a Protestant, so I don't know the Catholic position - wouldn't this be grounds for divorce? Annulment? Quote HistoryQuoted:
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now, I'm a Protestant, so I don't know the Catholic position - wouldn't this be grounds for divorce? Annulment? An annulment means that the marriage never actually occurred because of some condition (such as fraud, mental incapacity) that existed at the time of the marriage. Nothing that occurs after the marriage can lead to an annulment. Here's a Catholic apologetics site on the divorce/adultery thing: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-say-adultery-is-grounds-for-divorce |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2017 2:26:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Cardinal Muller of the CDF kicks the can down the road: Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes
More here: Cardinal Müller’s TV Interview Causes Bewilderment |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2017 10:12:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryPope Francis, the cardinal concluded, “asks to discern the situation of these people who live in irregular unions, that are not according to the Church's teaching on marriage, and to help these people find a way for a new integration into the Church according to the conditions of the sacraments, the Christian message about marriage.” He said he did not “see any opposition: on the one hand we have the clear teaching on marriage, on the other the obligation of the Church to be concerned about these people in difficulty.” Sure, they can do that by living as brother and sister and not engaging in persistent adultery. But this has always been so. I get the impression that Muller is not speaking freely. But critics say he seems oblivious to the concerns about the divergent interpretations of the document — deep apprehensions reportedly shared far beyond the four cardinals — and suspect that after the Pope recently removed three of the cardinal's collaborators without giving a reason, and with a formal correction possibly imminent, he felt compelled, or was compelled, to show the Pope an unmistakeable sign of loyalty. Others argue that the Italian the cardinal uses in the interview is more nuanced than the English translation, that he knows what he is doing, and is trying to defend orthodoxy and Church unity in his own way. I think one of these is likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2017 4:41:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
228 cardinals, only 4 have a problem with the pope. 50,000+ priests and only 15 or so agree with the 4 cardinals. Me, when I stand before the Lord I'm not going to have to say I slandered his Vicar. Slander is a sin too, correct? Quote HistoryQuoted:
228 cardinals, only 4 have a problem with the pope. 50,000+ priests and only 15 or so agree with the 4 cardinals. Me, when I stand before the Lord I'm not going to have to say I slandered his Vicar. Slander is a sin too, correct? Pentin also said that a “significant number” of bishops’ conferences have expressed concerns about the document. Furthermore, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), having seen a draft, submitted several pages of revisions. These were not accepted, according to Pentin. The Pope has also not replied to either the 30 cardinals or the bishops’ conferences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2017 8:10:30 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2017 8:12:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's getting real, folks... So, why isn't it humanly impossible for the unmarried to live chastely...or priests? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2017 8:08:03 PM EDT
[#30]
If people persisting in adultery can receive communion provided that they believe that they are "at peace with God," then why not gay people who are "married?" Why not anybody who is in a state of mortal sin?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2017 10:05:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Don't worry....Card. Mueller of the CDF says there's no danger to the faith from Amoris Laetitia........
Maltagate:At peace with Satan |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2017 5:40:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If people persisting in adultery can receive communion provided that they believe that they are "at peace with God," then why not gay people who are "married?" Why not anybody who is in a state of mortal sin? People are sneaky. If they lie about it double sin. The question is " Do we LOVE our Lord enough to hold ourselves accountable for our sins" We aren't slaves to sin. We are slaves to ourselves and how we choose to justify our sins. If we have priest or bishops or cardinals and even the Pope who lead these souls astray their punishment as a PRIEST will be more than we an imagine. You know what Christ said about leading His little ones astray! This goes all the way to the Pope. That doesn't excuse the faithful from blindly following. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2017 5:04:50 PM EDT
[#33]
 Blessing Adultery: Christ the Judgmental vs. Francis the Humble |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2017 1:56:37 AM EDT
[#34]
This thread has run far astray from the OT and also stayed true. On the latter point, Pope Francis is straying into moral relativism and using it as a basis for what Pius X defined as "Modernism."
I'll stick to what has always been held up as Catholic teaching... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2017 10:13:24 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 6:57:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Good to see Cardinal Muller answer with less ambiguity:
http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-muller-it-is-impossible-for-mortal-sin-to-coexist-with-sanctifying-grace/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 7:02:18 PM EDT
[#37]
ost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 8:05:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good to see Cardinal Muller answer with less ambiguity: http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-muller-it-is-impossible-for-mortal-sin-to-coexist-with-sanctifying-grace/ Interesting times. Saw that yesterday |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2017 9:26:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting times. Saw that yesterday Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good to see Cardinal Muller answer with less ambiguity: http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-muller-it-is-impossible-for-mortal-sin-to-coexist-with-sanctifying-grace/ Interesting times. Saw that yesterday See also http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/4-confraternities-of-catholic-clergy-statement-on-amoris-laetitia/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2017 4:09:47 PM EDT
[#40]
I'm afraid Muller's statement is not all that impressive given his fanciful interpretation of how AL should be read despite Francis' pronouncements to the contrary....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2017 6:14:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm afraid Muller's statement is not all that impressive given his fanciful interpretation of how AL should be read despite Francis' pronouncements to the contrary.... I thought he was referring to the bishops of Malta and other liberals with his "blind leading the blind" remark, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2017 10:30:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm afraid Muller's statement is not all that impressive given his fanciful interpretation of how AL should be read despite Francis' pronouncements to the contrary.... I read it as him calling Francis out, daring him to come out and say what Amoris really means. He's pretty much the second most authoritative guy on these matters, after all. This may force Francis's hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2017 11:54:11 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read it as him calling Francis out, daring him to come out and say what Amoris really means. He's pretty much the second most authoritative guy on these matters, after all. This may force Francis's hand. I think that's a "Pollyanna view," but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.... Muller's Willful Blindness |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 1:37:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Pray silently
So the link above is where the local Italian Catholics have been told to pray silently so as not to offend the muslims living in the CHURCH. Ummm..... NO no and NO. That is the most ridiculous thing I've read ever and there is so much ridiculous out there. This just tops it. The CHURCH should NOT be changing how we do things to accommodate and interloper. We are taking care of their needs. But God comes first. If they find our God offensive... LEAVE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2017 10:34:49 PM EDT
[#45]
 World Over - 2017-02-16 – Amoris Laetitia Row, Fr Gerald Murray, Robert Royal with Raymond Arroyo |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2017 2:28:38 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2017 3:04:51 PM EDT
[#47]
I don't think it's open to debate anymore....and it will only get worse. Think Fatima / Akita.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2017 5:51:37 AM EDT
[#48]
"I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches."
This Disastrous Papacy Pray unceasingly, my brothers. May our Blessed Mother intervene on our behalf in these uncertain times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2017 8:11:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches."
This Disastrous Papacy Pray unceasingly, my brothers. May our Blessed Mother intervene on our behalf in these uncertain times. Pray to God that your eyes will be open to the blasphemy of the Catholic church. Mary doesn't hear prayers. If a church, any church, is teaching false doctrine, either have it fixed or leave it. An example would be a Protestant denomination approving of homosexuality and making out like it isn't sin. Their pastors are even approved as homosexuals. I actually saw gay pride flags on a church in Illinois a few months ago in a college town. This is happening before our very eyes. God's word is being twisted and perverted by men. The Cathloic church is full of teachings and practices that are contrary to scripture. They've been pointed out before and are ignored or justified in some way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2017 10:26:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pray to God that your eyes will be open to the blasphemy of the Catholic church. Mary doesn't hear prayers. If a church, any church, is teaching false doctrine, either have it fixed or leave it. An example would be a Protestant denomination approving of homosexuality and making out like it isn't sin. Their pastors are even approved as homosexuals. I actually saw gay pride flags on a church in Illinois a few months ago in a college town. This is happening before our very eyes. God's word is being twisted and perverted by men. The Cathloic church is full of teachings and practices that are contrary to scripture. They've been pointed out before and are ignored or justified in some way. Thanks for checking in with your drive-by theology....I generally find responding to Protestant types boring and not worth the effort, your post being a prime example. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
